Front Burner - As wildfires burn, climate debate stagnates

Episode Date: June 13, 2023

As smoke from wildfires in Ontario and Quebec blanketed the nation’s capital early last week, air quality advisories caused residents to wear masks and kids to stay inside for recess. Most debate in the House of Commons, however, remained around the economy and inflation – including arguments that climate change measures should be stopped or curtailed. Smoke and burning skies in Toronto, New York, Philadelphia and Washington have since sparked international conversations about our changing climate. Today, CBC senior writer Aaron Wherry joins us to discuss why – even as Canada itself burns – our environmental policy debate continues to stagnate around the merits of carbon taxes. For transcripts of this series, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Saroja Coelho. I work outside all day, so my eyes get irritated, and it is a bit harder to breathe. It's very unexpected. It really happened out of the blue. And I just really hope that everyone stays safe, you know, wear a mask outside,

so the smoke doesn't go into their lungs. I have respiratory problems, health problems, and kind of really sensitive to the air quality. Last week, some Canadians who thought they lived far from the effects of raging wildfires got a dose of climate reality. Smoke blowing from fires in Quebec and Ontario blanketed cities like Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa, and even Philadelphia and Washington in the U.S. New York City had its worst air quality on record. But even as the gray plumes and sepia skies started making global headlines, in our own House of Commons, climate change was initially barely on the agenda. The warming amplifying these fires has been sidelined in some of our provincial debates too. Ontario and Alberta premiers Doug Ford and Danielle Smith have resisted linking the fires

to climate change at all. Mr. Speaker, I'm actually in shock that the leader of the opposition is politicizing wildfires. It's staggering, really. I'm very concerned that there are arsonists and there have been stories as well that we're investigating and we're bringing in arson investigators. So why is it that as climate change is contributing to apocalyptic scenes in more of our cities, it continues to take a backseat to issues like the economy. To discuss our stagnating environmental debate, I'm joined once again by CBC senior writer Aaron Weary from Ottawa. Hi, Aaron. Hey. Before we go inside the House of Commons, can you tell me what was happening outside in Ottawa last week? Monday and Tuesday, what was the air like in the city? Yeah, it was pretty rough. I think other parts of the country have experienced this

already in years past, obviously, but this is really kind of the first time we've had smoke from wildfires in Ottawa like this. Ottawa residents are breathing their way through the worst air quality in North America. It was a 10 plus on the air quality health index today, the highest risk possible. The air, it smelled like a campfire outside. It was tough to breathe. People were wearing masks. Kids were kept inside during recess. It was pretty bleak. You know, you wake up in the morning and the sky is orange and it feels rather dystopian. It was a pretty rough few days.

I want to make sure we keep this in perspective because this has to be kind of annoying for folks who are in your fires in the east and the west. But the air last week seemed to be a real shock for people in southern Ontario and New York. No? I mean, people, how did you see people reacting to that? Yeah, I think it was that it really was the first time that this area, you know, the impacts of climate change felt so viscerally. Like, I'm sure there have been times in the past where, you know, we've kind of smelt smoke from fires. And obviously, you know, anyone who's sort of been paying any attention over the last, say,

dozen years has seen, you know, examples of this in other places. But I guess it's true of climate change in general. It's very easy, I guess, to kind of understand it as an abstract concern that's happening in the future or happening somewhere else. But I think there was a real sort of collective shock, you know, having to kind of experience it for the first time. So Parliament Hill was quite literally wrapped in a haze. And right across Ottawa, people were talking about the air. They were talking about climate change. But if we crack open the door of the House of Commons,

Monday and Tuesday, what were MPs talking about? Yeah, even as the smoke sort of rolls in and really kind of envelops the city, the debate in the House of Commons took a while to really kind of grasp what was going on outside. The debate in the House of Commons took a while to really kind of grasp what was going on outside. The debate in the House was mainly focused on economic concerns, particularly as it relates to inflation. Mr. Speaker, it's no longer just me that's pointing out that deficits cause inflation. It's the former Liberal Finance Minister, John Manley, who says this government is putting its foot on the inflationary gas, He says this government is putting its foot on the inflationary gas while the Bank of Canada is slamming its foot on the brakes by raising interest rates on Canadians. The reality is our economy grew by 3.1% in the first quarter of this year.

We have the strongest recovery in the G7. And when it comes to inflation, Mr. Speaker, it has gone down from 8.1%. And then sort of related to that, conservative concerns about the cost of certain climate policies. Carbon tax is fueling food inflation as grocery prices are up another 10%, costing Canadian families another $1,000 a year just to put food on the table. That's not even the bad news. That does not include the implications of the Liberal's second carbon tax. A carbon tax... You know, by all means, look, those are important issues. Those are issues that, you know, lots of Canadians are concerned about. But, you know, usually I would say that when there's kind of a disaster or a major event happening around the House of Commons, the debate inside is kind of forced to acknowledge it.

And there was, you know, kind of a token, quote unquote, emergency debate held that night. It was Monday or Tuesday night for a couple of hours. But there really, it took a while for sort of the debate in the House of Commons to kind of come around and deal with, you know, what was such an obvious kind of reality happening outside to such a degree that, you know, what was such an obvious kind of reality happening outside, to such a degree that, you know, even MPs inside the House would stand up and say, oh, you know, the air is difficult to breathe in here, or we can taste the smoke, we can smell the smoke. At a time when Alberta has been burning, when Quebec is burning, when Atlantic Canada is burning, when we are struggling to breathe here in Ottawa,

this party continues to resist climate action. That is a huge... So it wasn't, you know, it didn't seem lost on them, but it just didn't seem to kind of impact the debate the way you might have expected it to. So one of the policies that the Conservatives are going after here sounds very familiar. It's what they're calling a second carbon tax. You've definitely been hearing that be thrown around. So there'll be carbon tax one, then carbon tax two,

and then HST on carbon tax one and two, all of which will cost you six... There are the new federal fuel regulations arriving in just three weeks from now. What will those change? Yeah, so these are what, yeah, as you said, clean fuel regulations. They aren't kind of a terribly new concept, but the Liberals have enhanced theirs and are finally, after many years of negotiation and trying to write these regulations the

right way, are finally moving forward with something. And essentially, it's to make fuel less emissions intensive. But it revives the debate because, you know, there will be or there could be additional costs that could be passed on to consumers, ultimately, as these regulations come into place. And that sort of adds to Conserva complaints about carbon taxes, and it revives the entire idea of the cost of the policies that are put in place to reduce emissions. It sounds like this debate over the fuel standards giving you a bit of deja vu.

Yeah, I mean, I think it's part of the issue here. And part of what I wrote about or tried to write about was the debate over carbon taxes over policies, you know, related to emissions and what costs they have on them. That debate, we've essentially been having almost the exact same debate for, you know, going on 16 years now, going back to when Stéphane Dion, as Liberal leader in 2007, proposed a carbon tax. I have good news. The good news is that we Liberals have a vision, a vision for a richer, fairer, greener Canada. And at that point, the entire debate became, are carbon taxes good or bad?

How much is a carbon tax going to cost? You know, is this policy good policy? Is it bad policy? And it hasn't, as much as, you know, there have been major changes in public opinion and even in government policy, the sort of central issue of Canadian climate debate remains, should there be a carbon price or not? How much is the carbon price going to cost? Is it going to cost too much? And the debate hasn't moved forward very far. It's still kind of stuck in this sort of very stark partisan split over carbon taxes. You don't actually have to go all the way back to Dion and his time in the climate debate. We can even just go back a couple of years

before the Conservatives ousted him. Erin O'Toole was leading the Conservatives in the 2021 election with a much more serious climate plan. Canada's Conservatives will meet our Paris climate commitment and reduce emissions by 2030 to fight climate change

and protect our environment. But we won't do it on the backs of working Canadians or by hurting our economy. And there were a lot of folks who are fiscally conservative but climate conscious who enjoyed that moment. But his successor, Poliev, he opposes the carbon tax. What's he been saying about tackling climate change? Yeah, his response or his suggestion at this point is that his policy or his climate agenda will ultimately be focused on technology, not taxes.

We believe in incentivizing carbon capture and storage to put the carbon back in the ground where it came from. These are common sense ideas that lower the cost of carbon free energy rather than raising the cost of energy that Canadians continue to rely upon. Technology, not taxes. But it's not clear what that means exactly. You know, one of the things that the Conservatives are angry with the federal government about is that they believe it's been spending too much money, you know, going back to the spring budget and in the years ahead. And part of the where it becomes kind of hard to square the circle is that, you know, a significant amount of the new spending the government announced in the spring was tied to tax credits, ultimately subsidies for clean

technology. And so if the conservative opposition wants to put a focus on technology, it's not entirely clear how they would do that. And the larger issue is, you know, look, there is by all means a fair debate to be had over carbon pricing and whether there are better ways of doing things. But it's not much of a debate at this point, because after the Conservatives dumped Aaron O'Toole, they essentially ripped up the environmental plan he had put together. And so we're back into a position where, you know, there is this debate over carbon taxes, but it's not clear what the alternative is. It's not clear how the official opposition would have Canada get to its climate targets, or if it would have Canada get to its climate targets.

It's a kind of an incomplete debate. And it gets back to this very sort of basic partisan split that has persisted for a long time. And it's, I think it's worth remembering that it doesn't, you know, as much as we may be getting used to there being sort of a very kind of basic disagreement over climate policy along partisan lines in Canada, it doesn't necessarily need to be that way. You know, you look at countries like England where, you know, yes, there are by all means differences over how fast the country should move or which policies to implement, but there's kind of a broad consensus about the need for serious climate policy and the goals that should be in place. And we just haven't reached that point in Canada. And what it means is that

on moments like last week, where there's this obvious issue, making climate change sort of real and tangible, the parties are kind of stuck and they don't immediately pivot to discussing climate change because, you know, the conservatives maybe don't think it's a strong issue for them. And there's not really a debate to be had anyway, because we're still talking about carbon taxes. So it's kind of holding the country back, I think. It's such an interesting thing that you're bringing up about how the conversation on climate became one of left and right or even advocacy. I lived before moving back to Canada, I lived in Germany for 10 years. And there,

there's a very strong push by the conservatives to bring in renewable energy, to look at climate issues. Climate change does not belong on the left or the right. It's really about the approach. And it was a real recal politically or being further on the left, which was an utter surprise to me. And I find that that is going to definitely, as you're saying, I think that's going to be one of our biggest jumps is how we're going to neutralize the politicizing of climate change so that everybody can be a part of the conversation. Yeah. And it's, you know, to a certain degree, it lets the liberal government off the hook

because the liberal government just has to point across the aisle and say, well, you don't have a climate plan. If he has a better plan, let him say it because we've been waiting a long time for it. But he has no plan to fight climate change. He still questions whether it exists while Canada is burning. That, you know, makes it harder for the official opposition to say, well, you should be doing more or you should be doing better. It limits even the ability to have a conversation about adaptation and whether the government is doing enough to deal with wildfires. It just holds the whole debate back. And look, there are reasons for that, right?

The Canadian debate has developed the way it has for a few reasons. You know, the oil and gas industry is a much bigger presence in Canada than it is in, say, England. And it is regionally concentrated. So that makes it, you know, there's not a shared view of how oil and gas should be treated and what to do about the future of that industry. You know, whereas England sits beside Europe, which has, as you say, a much different view of climate policy, we sit beside the United States where there's an even more stark partisan divide. So there are definitely reasons why we have developed this way, but it's a limit on sort of how fast and how far the country can move when the major parties aren't kind of working within the same frame. In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem.

Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization. Empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income? That's not a typo, 50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner

create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. The way we talk about climate in our politics is often like it's this separate issue. And we poll Canadians about their priority issues and divide affordability and climate. But why might we consider the environment when thinking about economic health? Well, because it's just so, at this point, it is so central to so many different things, right? Physical infrastructure to people's health, to the economy writ large. It's not a, as you say, it's not a separate issue. You know, to go back to sort of 2007, when Stephane Dion had his carbon tax, there was there was a time when green issues were kind of considered a trendy thing. And now we've moved into a place where, you know, the latest thinking is like of climate change is going to be measured in lower GDP,

higher costs for Canadians, lost jobs. And you can expand off that and say it's going to impact national security, it's going to impact immigration, it's going to impact health care. Costs are expected to climb as climate-related disasters become more common. According to the Canadian Climate Institute, by 2025, disasters become more common. According to the Canadian Climate Institute, by 2025, climate change is expected to shave $25 billion off of Canada's GDP.

And so it's not a tidy issue that you can put aside. You can't talk about the economy really anymore if you aren't going to talk about climate change. And, you know, even while the discussion is focused on inflation and on housing costs and government spending, you have to be able to take a step back and say, oh, like, you know, if the government is spending more on disaster relief, that's also going to add to government spending. And climate change is also going to impact cost of living. And I don't know that, you know, Canadian politicians haven't quite made that next leap. Canadian politicians haven't quite made that next leap. I think the public opinion has moved to a point where climate change isn't just considered sort of a secondary or tangential issue, but the political debate hasn't yet gotten to

a point where it views climate change as something that is underneath all of these issues. It strikes me that the Liberals have really positioned themselves as our best hope for a sober conversation on climate and economy. Trudeau held a conference on the wildfires last Monday and not so subtly called out conservatives over it. There are some politicians that still think you can have a plan for great jobs and growing the economy without having a plan to fight climate change. But Canadians know that fighting climate change is necessary both to create those great jobs and opportunity, but to also prevent the catastrophic and very expensive losses that Canadians are facing

increasingly over the years. But if climate really is a priority for the Liberals, why have they failed to center or to move forward the debate on climate action, especially given the opportunity of the wildfire crisis? Well, I think to a certain degree, as I say, like they get a bit of a break in that they don't feel like they need to play defense on this issue in terms of whether they're moving too far. You know, yes, there are the NDP and the Greens would say, well, you need to keep going. You need to be doing way more. But the liberals' major fight is with the conservatives and the conservatives are mainly saying to the liberals, you're doing too much. You need to slow

down. So it becomes easier for the liberals to kind of do what they're doing right now. They don't have to necessarily pay as much mind to those people who say they need to be doing more, because they can always point to the alternative and say, well, at least we're doing more than they would have us do. I compare it to sort of healthcare to a certain degree in that in the healthcare world, there is now kind of a basic agreement that Medicare is more or less sacrosanct and people's wealth or their income should not dictate what kind of healthcare they should get. Yes, there's obviously debate over what role private should play in that, but the basic principle is there. And so then there can be a debate about,

is healthcare delivering? Is it delivering enough? Should it be delivering more? Why isn't it delivering more? And when it fails, politicians are under a significant amount of heat. In the case of climate change, we haven't yet kind of gotten to the point where there's a debate over whether the government is doing well enough. We're still sort of in the starting blocks of, should the government be doing what it's doing or not? Or should it be doing even less? Again, that just makes it that much easier for the liberals to a certain extent. The carbon tax remains the big one that we talk about. I mean, it takes up an extraordinary amount of oxygen in the political debate. Is there more that the liberals are doing or is the carbon tax really still that jewel in the crown of their climate policy?

Yeah, that's kind of the funny thing is the liberals have all sorts of other policies, EV mandates, the tax credits, the policies they're now trying to pursue in the oil and gas sector, the industrial carbon price. There are all sorts of other policies. And I'm not sure even that experts would say that the carbon price is the most important piece, even as measured by sort of, you know, amount of emissions reduced. It's just that it's the most immediately tangible part of it. It's the piece that immediately you can sort of point to and say, that policy leads to these costs. Again, I don't want to say there isn't a debate to be had that it's not an important

policy, but it's really not the be-all and end-all, right? In addition to the mitigation policies, the policies aimed at reducing emissions, there are, you know, major questions to be asked about how well the country is set up to deal with wildfires and flooding and all these other real impacts that climate change is going to have. You know, if you go back to the pandemic, for instance, when the pandemic hit, there were all sorts of questions about, was the government prepared enough? Had the government done enough stockpiling of supplies? Had they, you know, set the health care system up to be ready to deal with something like this?

Those questions aren't really being asked right now, even as, you know, Parliament Hill is clouded in smoke. Well, if we turn back to the Conservatives for a moment, why do you think they're betting on this strategy of inflation and economy first, and then pushing environment further, really far down the list of priorities? that in any given election, people are going to say, you know, I really just, we need to make sure people can afford houses. So I'm less concerned about whether or not we have the exact right climate policy. And I think that is a potentially winning argument at any time. And I think it's a concern the liberals, if the liberals have any sense, they would be looking at that and saying, yeah, that we can't go into the next election saying, you know, that they have the best climate policy if people can't afford homes. I don't want to end here on the really grim picture, because clearly, as you've laid out

this map, you've given us lots of political opportunity. There are many routes in the road ahead. But I do want to ask, if we don't meet our climate goals and Canada contributes to that irreversible threshold of two degrees of global warming, we know what scientists are saying. We know that we're facing the possibility of mass migration, millions of people dying, cultures lost. If that came to pass and we looked over our shoulder historically, how do you think we would look back on this period of Canadian politics? older historically. How do you think we would look back on this period of Canadian politics? Yeah, I think if we fail miserably, we will look back with no small amount of shame, right? You know, we often do that when we look at sort of major moments in world history, whether it be war or some other, you know, significant struggle. People often go back and look at what politicians said and did at the time. And, you know, there are no small number of times when politicians have not risen to the occasion. And, you know, this is one of those times, I suspect, you know, look, I don't think there's any kind of silver lining on what has happened over the past week. But I do wonder to

a certain degree whether, you know, more people experiencing that air and experiencing that smoke are going to be that much more concerned about climate change and climate policy. And politicians ultimately are pretty simple creatures. They respond to voter concerns and what will or will not get them elected. if more voters are that much more concerned about climate policy, then there is that possibility that ultimately that's going to lead to growing consensus on the need to do something. There's a very quiet rallying cry in your final words there, Aaron. Thank you so much. Anytime.

Just a quick update before we go. After we recorded this episode, an opposition motion raised by the Bloc Québécois passed in the House of Commons. It called on the government to do more to combat climate change, to stop investing in fossil fuels, and to develop incentives to promote renewable energy and public transit. I'm Saroja Coelho. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow.